Wow, it went from a debate about cloning and the morality of cloning YOUR OWN MATERIAL(not killing and harvesting others, where are you getting that from?) to me being a cold-hearted user of my fellow humans. Disgusting personal attack, but typical. You might have instead just made your point without launching into such attacks, as you don't know me enough to make such a statement. For there to be a moral cost, I must assume that you speak of cloning and killing full humans. When you say that even manipulating genetic material is wrong, you paint yourself into an irrational extremist corner. Should we also refuse genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis? And what of the possible evolutionary costs? We've been genetically engineering plants and animals for millenia. It's been much less precise, but it's been DELIBERATE which is what really separates it from "natural selection." I don't see you condemning that or the hue and cry over commodifying life(human or not.)
That's another human being you've just created, not "your own material."
Disgusting personal attack, but typical.
You're advancing the utilitarian argument; I'm merely extrapolating your position to its logical conclusion.
When you say that even manipulating genetic material is wrong, you paint yourself into an irrational extremist corner.
Deliberately altering the reproductive process to induce a gross birth defect, solely to give yourself a figleaf to pretend that you're not creating a human being, is irrational and extremist.
Should we also refuse genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis?
One involves creating human beings solely for personal convenience. The other does not.
And what of the possible evolutionary costs?
You don't seem to give a damn about them--you just want to induce massive birth defects so you can "maintain the fiction."